06-24-08 Agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
*******************************************************************************************************
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion regarding Public Safety Crime Statistics
Notes:
• Adjournment
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/HRA/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:15 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion regarding Airport Consent Decree
(Council Memo No. 102/HRA Memo No. 17)
Notes:
• Adjournment
•
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
•
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of Special City Council Worksession of June 10, 2008.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Recognition of Centennial Babies
2. Presentation. of Governor's Fit City Award
3. Presentation of Hennepin County 2008 Wellness by Design Award
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
•
4. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
• Update on Public Safety activity related to restaurants
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. Council approval of agenda
• CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is
necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from
the Consent Calendar and placed on-the regular agenda for Council discussion and
action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of a resolution allowing the City to enter into a
Cooperative Agreement with Mn/DOT to administer the Reconstruction of the 6300
Block of Lyndale Avenue Project S.R. No. 149
B. Consideration of approval for a community celebration event license and a
temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license, with a request for fee waiver, for
the Fourth of July Committee for events scheduled to take place at Veterans
Memorial Park, July 2 through July 6, 2008 S.R. No. 150
C. Consideration of approval of a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for
the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue, for
activities to take place July 3 and 4, 2008 S.R. No. 151
D. Consideration of approval of a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license
and a public dance license for The Church of the Assumption for their annual Fun
Fiesta to be held August 16 and 17, 2008 S.R. No. 152
• Notes:
7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Public hearing and consideration of second reading of transitory ordinance vacating a
portion of utility easement at 800 West 66th Street (continued from May 13, 2008 and
June 10, 2008)
Staff Report No. 153
Notes:
• 9. Public hearing and consideration of approval of resolution adopting the five-year capital
improvement budget and plan for the City prepared in compliance with Minnesota
Statutes, Section 475.521 and provide preliminary approval of the issuance of general
obligation bonds to finance capital improvements of the plan
Notes:
Staff Report No. 154
RESOLUTIONS
10. Consideration of resolutions regarding imposing civil enforcement on establishments
in Richfield that underwent alcohol compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public
Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth
Staff Report No. 155
Notes:
11. Consideration of resolutions regarding imposing civil enforcement on establishments
in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public
Safety staff and failed by selling tobacco to underage youth
• Staff Report No. 1.56,
Notes:
12. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City staff to incur costs for
proposed construction of a new Police/Fire/City Hall Facility
Staff Report No. 157
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
13. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code
repealing Subsection 509.17 and amending Subsection 925.01, Subd. 4(a) related to
clear visibility at intersections
Staff Report No. 158
Notes:
• OTHER BUSINESS
14. Consideration of approval of conceptual terms of proposed publicfinaricing for Cedar
Point Phase II redevelopment project
Staff Report No. 159
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
15. City Manager's report
Notes:
16. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
17. Special City Council Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference Room to
discuss pending condemnation litigation for acquisition of Lyndale Bridge right of way
18. Adjournment of Regular City Council Meeting
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
•
Rev. sed-
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # A-
REPORT #
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Cooperative Construction Agreement between the City of Richfield. and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) allowing the City to administer-the
Reconstruction of the 6300 Block of Lyndale Avenue Project.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution allowing the City to enter
into a Cooperative Construction Agreement with the Minnesota
Deaartment of Transportation.
II. BACKGROUND
The agreement and staff report are revised to include a special provisions quantity
for Special Excavation. The total agreement amount is now $1,483,032.61.
The City has been coordinating with Mn/DOT regarding the project along Lyndale
Avenue .including a new storm water pipe to convey additional runoff from the
Crosstown Project to Richfield Lake. The project includes the reconstruction of the
6300 block of Lyndale Avenue and construction of a storm water pipe across the
Lyndale Garden Center property to the perimeter ponding system around Richfield
Lake via easement.
The project is currently scheduled to begin in late July 2008 with the City
administering the project on behalf of Mn/DOT. The attached agreement authorizes
the City to receive funds from the State to cover the State's portion of the project,
06246300Lyndale
including construction inspection. Mn/DOT funds the project almost entirely. MSA
• (gas tax) and utility funds will fund the City's portion for costs associated with
sanitary, water and lighting utilities included in the construction.
III. -BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City wishes to administer the project in order to control the project
details and schedule.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The proposed agreement must be signed by the City before the
project can be advertised. In order to move ahead with construction in
July the project must be bid as soon as possible.
• The City has been coordinating the timing of the project with the
Mn/DOT Crosstown Project closure of the Lyndale Avenue underpass.
C. FINANCIAL
• This agreement allows the City. to obtain State funds to pay for the
Mn/DOT portion of the project. The actual amount received will be
based on the lowest responsible bid. Mn/DOT's portion is estimated
• to be $1,280,585.75.
• Construction Engineering is estimated to be $102,500 and will be
funded by Mn/DOT.
• $90,000 is estimated for the Sanitary Sewer Replacement, funded by
the Sewer Utility.
• $51,000 is estimated for the Watermain Replacement, funded by the
Water Utility,
• $68,000 is estimated for lighting, funded by Municipal State Aid funds
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• n/a
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not authorize the execution of the agreement.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Proposed Cooperative Construction Agreement
• Graphic of the project area
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
~~/
RESOLUTION. NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO MN/DOT
• AGREEMENT N0.92642 ALLOWING FOR A LUMP SUM PAYMENT FROM THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE GRADING, SURFACING, STORM SEWER, WATER
MAIN AND SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION ON LYNDALE AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City is about to perform grading, surfacing, curb and gutter, storm sewer,
sanitary sewer, water main, signing and lighting construction and other associated
construction upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 35W and on Lyndale Avenue
from 64 Street to 63~ Street within the corporate Cit~r limits in accordance with
City-preppared plans, specifications and special provisions designated by the City as City
Project No. 414-70 and by the State as State Projects No. 2782-302 (T.H. 35W=394) and
No. 157-363-027; and
WHEREAS, as art of the storm water drainage requirements for the Trunk Highway No.
35W/ Trunk Highway No. 62 (crosstown) construction, the State needs to construct a
storm drain tunnel from crosstown to pond No. 6 down Lyndale Avenue; and
WHEREAS, such storm drain construction will impact portions of the City utility
infrastructure, Street and sidewalk on Lyndale Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City has requested participation by the State in the costs of the grading,
surfacing, curb and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main and signing
construction; and
WHEREAS, the State is willing to participate in the costs of the grading, surfacing, curb
and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main and signing construction and
• associated construction engineering in a lump sum amount as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the
Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any
governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the
trunk highway system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 92642 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation
for the following purposes:
To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the costs of
the Lyndale Avenue construction and other associated construction to be performed upon,
along and adJacent to Trunk Highway 35W within the corporate City limits under State
Project No. 2782-302 (T.H. 35W=394).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the
Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City
of Richfield to execute and enter into an Agreement and any amendments to the
Agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of June
2008.
e ie oette , ayor
ATTEST:
ancy i s, ity er
~a a
•
PRE-LETTING. STATE OF MINNESOTA
SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT.
Mn/DOT
AGREEMENT NO.
92642
S.P. 2782-302 (T.H. 35W=394)
S.A.P. 157-363-027
C.P. 414-70
State Funds
The State of Minnesota
Department of Transportation, and
• The City of Richfield
Re: State lump sum payment for
grading, surfacing, storm sewer,
watermain and sanitary sewer
construction by the City adjacent to
T.H. 35W and on Lyndale Avenue
ORIGINAL
AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
1,483,032.61
AMOUNT RECEIVABLE '~''
(None )°
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of
Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as
the "State" and the City of Richfield, Minnesota, acting by and
through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City".
1
~~
• 92642
WHEREAS, the City is about to perform grading, surfacing, curb and
gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain, signing and lighting
construction and other associated construction upon, along and
adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 35W and on_Lyndale Avenue from 64th
Street to 63rd Street within the corporate City limits in accordance
with City-prepared plans, specifications and special provisions
designated by the .City as City Project No. 414-70 and by the State as
State Projects No. 2782-302 (T.H. 35W=394) and No. 157-363-027; and
WHEREAS, as part of the storm water drainage requirements for the
Trunk Highway No.. 35W/Trunk Highway No. 62 (Crosstown) construction,
the State needs to construct a storm drain tunnel from crosstown to
pond No. 6 down Lyndale Avenue; and
• WHEREAS, such storm drain construction will impact portions of the
City utility infrastructure, street and sidewalk on Lyndale Avenue;
and
WHEREAS, the City has requested participation by the State in the
costs of the grading, surfacing, curb and gutter, storm sewer,
sanitary sewer, watermain and signing construction; and
WHEREAS, the State is willing to participate in the costs of the
grading, surfacing, curb and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer,
watermain and signing construction and associated construction
engineering in a lump sum amount as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes
• the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and
2
' 14' ~ /~
92642
cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of
constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system.
IT IS, THEREFORE, MU'PUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION'BY THE CITY
Section A. Contract Award and Construction
The City shall receive bids and award a construction contract to the
lowest responsible bidder, subject to concurrence by the State in
that award, in accordance with S ate-approved-City plans,
specifications and special provisions designated by the City as City
Project No. 414-70 and by the State as State Projects No. 2782-302
(T.H. 35W=394) and No. 157-363-027. The contract construction shall
be performed in accordance with State-approved City plans,
specifications and special provisions that are on file in the office
of the City's Engineer, and are incorporated into this Agreement by
reference.
Section B. Documents to be Furnished to the State
The City shall, within 7 days of opening bids for the construction
contract, submit to the State's District Engineer at Roseville a copy
of the low bid and an abstract of all bids together with the City's
request for concurrence by the State in the award of the construction
contract. The City shall not award the construction contract until
the State advises the City in writing of its concurrence therein.
Section C. Rejection of Bids
The City may reject and the State may reasonably require the City to
i reject any or all bids for the construction contract. The party
3
IV~/~
. 92642
rejecting or requiring the rejection of bids must provide the other
party written notice of that rejection or requirement for rejection
no later than 30 days after opening bids and before the bid has been
awarded., Upon the rejection of all bids pursuant to this section, a
party may request, in writing, that the bidding process be repeated.
Upon the other party's written approval of such request, the City
will repeat the bidding process in a reasonable period of time,
without cost or expense to the State.
Section D. .Direction, Supervision and Inspection of Construction
The contract construction shall be under the direction of the City
and under the supervision of a registered professional engineer;
however, the State cost participation construction covered under this
Agreement shall be open to inspection by the State District
Engineer's authorized representatives. The City shall give the
District Engineer at least five days notice of its intention to start
the contract construction.
Responsibility for the control of materials for the State cost
participation. construction covered under this Agreement shall be on
the City and its contractor and shall be carried out in accordance
with Specifications No. 1601 through and including No. 1609 as set
forth in the State's current "Standard Specifications for
Construction".
Section E. Completion of Construction
The City ,shall cause the contract construction to be started and
completed in accordance with the time schedule in the construction
. contract special provisions. The completion date for the contract
4
/~
• 92642
construction may be .extended, by an exchange of letters between the
appropriate City official and the State District Engineer's
authorized representative, for unavoidable delays encountered in the
performance thereof.
Section F. Additional Construction, Plan Changes, Etc.
All changes in the plans, specifications and special provisions for
the State cost participation construction covered under this
Agreement and all addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements
entered into by the City and its contractor for State cost
participation construction covered under this Agreement must be
approved in writing by the State District Engineer's authorized
representative. The State shall not unreasonably delay such
• approval.
Section G. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and
The City shall, in connection with the award and
the construction contract and the performance of
construction, comply. and cause its contractor to
Federal, State and Local laws, and all applicably
regulations.
Regulations
administration of
the contract
comply with all
ordinances and
Section H. Right-of-Way, Easements and Permits
The City shall, without cost or expense to the State, obtain all
rights-of-way, easements, construction permits and any other permits
and sanctions that may be required in connection with the contract
construction. Prior to advance payment by the State, the City shall
furnish the State with certified copies of the documents for those
S rights-of-way and easements, and certified copies of those
5
~p~1
92642
construction permits and other permits and sanctions required for
State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement.
The-City is responsible for complying with and following Minnesota
Statues 216D.04, Subdivision la, for identification, notification,
design meetings and depiction of utilities affected by the contract
construction.
The City shall submit to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the
plans and specifications for the construction or reconstruction of
its sanitary sewer facilities to be performed under the construction
contract and obtain, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 115.07 or
Minnesota Rules 7001.1030, subpart 2C, either a permit or written
waiver from that agency for that construction or reconstruction to be
performed under the construction contract. The City is advised that
pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7001.1040, a written application for the
permit or waiver must be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency at least 180 days before the planned date of the sanitary
sewer facility construction or reconstruction.
ARTICLE II - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE STATE
Section A. SCHEDULE "I" and EXHIBIT "Cost Participation"
A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" is attached and incorporated into this
Agreement. The Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" includes all anticipated
State cost participation construction items and the construction
engineering cost share covered under this Agreement.
•
6
~~,g
• 92642
Section B. State Cost Participation Construction
The State shall, at the. percentage indicated, participate in the
following construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to
Trunk Highway No. 35W and on Lyndale Avenue from 64`h St. to 63rd St.
within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2782-302
(T.H. 35W=394). The construction includes the State's proportionate
share of item costs for mobilization and traffic control.
100 Percent shall be the State's rate of cost participation in all of
the grading, surfacing, curb and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer,
watermain and signing construction, which is on file at the locations
given in Section A. of this article. .The construction includes, but
is not limited to, those construction items as tabulated on Sheets
No. 2 thru No. 5 of the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I".
Section C. Construction Engineering Costs
The State shall pay a construction engineering charge in an amount
equal to 8 percent of the total cost of the State participation
construction covered under this Agreement.
ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE STATE
It is estimated that the State's share of the costs of the contract
construction plus the 8 percent construction engineering cost share
and a $100,000.00 contingency amount is the sum of $1,483,032.61 as
shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I". The attached
Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" was prepared using estimated unit prices.
Upon receipt and review of the construction contract bid documents
described in Article I, Section B. of this Agreement, the State shall
• then decide whether to concur in the City's award of .the construction
7
t!~ ~ /~
• - 92642
contract and, if so, prepare a Revised SCHEDULE "I" based on
construction contract unit prices.. The contingency amount is
provided to cover increased State costs when changing the
SCHEDULE "I" from estimated unit prices to contract unit prices.
After the following conditions have been met, the State shall advance
to the City .the State's full and complete lump sum cost share as
shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I":
A. Encumbrance by the State of the State's full and complete lump
sum cost share as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I".
B. Receipt by the State from the City of certified documentation for
all of the. right-of-way and easement acquisition required for
State cost participation construction covered under this
Agreement, and the approval of that documentation by the State's
Land Management Director at St. Paul.
C. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's
transmittal of it to the City along with a copy of the Revised
SCHEDULE "I" and a letter advising the City of the State's
concurrence in the award of the construction contract.
D. Receipt by the State of a written request from the City for the
advancement of funds. The request shall include certification by
the City that all necessary parties have executed the
construction contract.
8
/~
lV
• 92642
ARTICLE IV - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE CITY
The City shall keep records and accounts that enable it to provide
the State,. when requested, with the following:
A. Copies of the-City contractor's invoice(s) covering all contract
construction.
B. A copy of the endorsed and canceled City warrant or check paying
for final contract construction, or computer documentation of the
warrant issued certified by an appropriate City official that
final construction contract payment has been made.
•
C. Copies of all construction contract .change orders and
supplemental agreements.
D. A certification form, provided by the State, signed by the City's
Engineer in charge of the contract construction attesting to the
following:
1. Satisfactory performance and completion of all contract
construction in accordance with State-approved City plans,
specifications and special provisions.
2. Acceptance and approval of all materials furnished for the
State cost participation construction covered under this
Agreement relative to compliance of those materials to the
State's current "Standard Specifications for Construction".
9
~~,ii
• 92642
3.' Full payment by the City to its contractor for all contract
construction.
E. City Engineer certified copies of material .sampling reports and
of material testing results for the materials furnished for the
State cost participation construction covered under this
Agreement.
F. A copy of the "as built" plan sent to the State's District
Engineer.
ARTICLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section A. Maintenance by the City
Upon completion of .the Lyndale Avenue construction to be performed
• .within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the
City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the roadways and all
of the facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the
State.
Upon completion of the storm sewer catch basin and pipe leads
facilities construction to be performed within the corporate City
limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for
the proper routine maintenance of those facilities, without cost or
expense to the State. Routine maintenance includes,- but is not
limited to, removal of sediment, debris, vegetation and ice from
structures, grates .and pipes, repair of minor erosion problems, and
minor structure and pipe repair,. and any other maintenance activities
necessary to preserve the facilities and to prevent conditions such
•
10
I~~~~~
• 92642
as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of
the facilities.
Upon completion of the City-owned utilities construction to be
performed within the corporate City limits under the construction
contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of those
utilities, without cost or expense to the State.
Upon completion of the walkways construction to be performed within
the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City
shall provide for the proper maintenance of the walkways, without
cost or expense. to the State.
Section B. Maintenance by the State
• Upon completion of the main storm sewer trunk line construction to be
performed within the corporate City limits under the construction
contract, the State shall provide for the proper maintenance of those
facilities, without cost or expense to the City.
Section C. Additional Drainage
Neither party to this Agreement shall drain any additional drainage
into the storm sewer facilities to be constructed under the
construction contract, that was not included in the drainage for
which the storm sewer facilities were designed, without first
obtaining written permission to do so from the other party. The
drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities constructed under
the construction contract are shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT
"Drainage Area", which is on file in the office of the State's
•
11
~~~3
•
•
•
92642
District Hydraulics Engineer at Roseville and is incorporated into
this Agreement by reference.
Section D. Future Responsibilities
Upon completion of the Lyndale Avenue construction to be performed
within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the
City shall thereafter accept full and total responsibility and all
obligations and liabilities arising out of or by reason of the use,
operation, maintenance, repair. and reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue
and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed hereunder,
without cost or expense to the State.
Section E. Termination of Agreement
Each-party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, by
providing the other party with written or fax notice of effective
date of termination. The State i"s not obligated to pay for services
performed after notice and effective date of termination. Upon
effective termination, the City is entitled to payment for services
satisfactorily performed under this Agreement prior to the effective
date of termination.
notice and effective date of termination. Upon effective
The State may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not
obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding
source; or if funding cannot reasonably be continued at a level
sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered under
this Agreement.. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the
City. .The State is not obligated to pay for services performed after
termination, the City is entitled to payment for services
12
~ ~~~
9.2642
satisfactorily performed under this Agreement prior to the effective
date of termination, to the extent the funds are available.
Section F. Examination of Books, Records, Etc.
As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the
books,. records, documents, and. accounting procedures and practices of
each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by
each party, and either the .legislative auditor or the state auditor
as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from final payment.
Section G. Claims
Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims
arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is
• responsible for its own acts, omissions and the .results thereof to
the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the. acts
and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes
Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern
liability of the City.
Section H. Nondiscrimination
The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and of any
applicable law relating to civil rights-and discrimination-shall be
considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
Section I. Agreement Approval
Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be
approved by a City Council resolution and executed by such State and
•
13
~~, ~y
. ~ 92642
City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner
of Transportation or their authorized representative.
ARTICLE VI - AUTHORIZED AGENTS
The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of
this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek, F~Iunicipal Agreements
Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are
395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MN 55155,
(651) 366-4634.
The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of
this Agreement is Kristin Asher, City Engineer, or their successor.
Their current address and phone number are 6700 Portland Avenue,
• Richfield, MN 55423-2599, (612) 861-9795.
•
14
W~~~
.. 92642
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their
authorized officers.
STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered
as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05.
By
Date
MAPS encumbrance No.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Date June 24, 2008 -
By
Title Stevexl L. Aevich, City Ma~a,gez
Date June 24, 2008
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Recommended for approval:
By
District Engineer
Approved:
By
State Design Engineer
Date
Approved as to form and execution:
By
Contract Management
Date.
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
As delegated to Materials Management Division
By
Date
•
15
`,~,`~-~
I~~~~~
•
•
0
0
N
.~
O
~-,
'~
V1
~ ~n ~O
[~ : m .-,
" C ~
O ~•
~
1n ~!1 N - N
00 r~.. '7 c^ "' M
00 s '. cC ~ OC
N
i rv'..- irr~, -': mot
.-- r
I
i er• u~
.r
C
.~ ~ ~
I
~ ~.
~` N L ~
W C~ O
~ ~.J
'
.+
., ~ ~
r .J O
~ ~..,
~ ', 'O
~'
C/:~
r.. ~ O - ! cd
~" C
~" ~ 1
Ci
L", O
~ y ~
~
~ ...
C/_
O
~
L a
v
~ A ~ ~ ~ ~
t ~(
~
i^
: N
~'
~ •~
.-. ~
~ q
~ ~
~ ', ~
Q N
f~ ~ (%] N
Y y
.~ ~
N O Q
y ~
3
v~
I
c O
o ~ d
y ~ v ~ O
O ~ .-a ~
N ~/]
N N L: S'. U ~i
c ~ ~ ' Q ~
i-.
o F.
w F
¢ F
¢ ~ .U.
'~
N a+ ' ~. O U
~
~ ~ .~
~' J ~
~ ~ ~ ~ b ~
w
~ .~
~ O
.b ~
w ' O
~
UU ~
~ O
U ~
w ~
~, U
.-~ ~ 3 ~ N y b
°° ~ 3 _ ~- ~ ~
~ ~ M ~ ''
3 U O
M ~
U ~ ~-" UU+
~
~~+ ~
N
b0
U
O
.~ O
m
~ ~' ' ~ ~ ' ~ 0
M
~
W
.d ~
Li
4-i a
+
CM
M
O
~
~ ~
~
~
'
G".
N
~ ~ O ti ~ ~
~" 00 a~-+
N a y :b O Q w
a
vi Q
v~
U
~
C7
a.
°
v
v
~C~
~, ~D fl.
~ ~D
~V`, `D
I
O
~•
'~
' '
IA,rt
W =
a
v
e~
3
~o
0
3
r
z
v
n
r
m
z ~
C ~
m ~
-~ _
~ O
n ~'
D y
r ~
m
n
_~
O
Z
rn
rn
m -~
~~ V
~~
Dlo
z~~ °-'
mmv
~i
c
z
m
c
z
m
c
z
m
c.
~'
m~l
z
D
r
- m~
1
m
z
-~ m
~~
mmv ~
cn
Dr ~
1 ' ' 1 m
Z
O O O O O O m
v ~ v v ~ -o °
~~ v v v v
ao ~ ~ v ao ~
= I c v~ z~ g
I ~ ~ ~ y D
~ ~ c ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~o~
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 6B
REPORT # 150
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT
SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of an annual request for a community celebration event license and a temporary
on-sale 3:2 percent malt liquor license, with a request for a fee waiver, for the Fourth of July
Committee for events scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park, July 2 through July
6, 2008.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the requests from the Fourth of July Committee
for the following in connection with the annual events to take place
July 2-6, 2008:
• A community celebration event license, and
• A temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license
• Waive associated fees
II. BACKGROUND
Each year the Fourth of July Committee makes application for a community
celebration event license and requests that the community celebration fee of $5,000
be waived for the activities that take place throughout the City for this celebration.
This year's celebration is scheduled to take place July 2 through July 6, 2008.
As in the past, they have also included a request for a temporary on-sale 3.2
percent malt liquor license which would allow them to serve beer and wine coolers
at Veterans Memorial park during the July 3rd activities. A copy of the liquor liability
insurance has been provided.
0624 Fourth of July Committee Licenses
A detailed activity plan of the days' events is currently on file.
• The food concessions will be staffed by members of various or anizations, most of
g
which have been with the committee since the celebration began.
The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to
ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with
Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome
food handling. In addition, each individual concessionaire has been approved by
Laima Dingley of the Bloomington Health Department.
All fees for each professional concession have been received.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City
application process and meets the requirements for fee waiver.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Public Safety police officers have been hired by the Fourth of July
Committee to patrol the area for this event.
• There have been no alcohol-related incidents in the past for this event.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request of a community celebration event license and a temporary
on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. This would result in the applicant not
being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation
and temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor sales, on July 2 through July 6,
2008.
Deny the request for fee waiver. This would mean that the annual
community event would have a fee of $5,000 payable to the City.
• V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Melissa Barns and Daniel Randolph of the Fourth of July Committee, have
been notified of the date for Council consideration of this request.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSEN'P
AGENDA ITEM # 6C
REPORT # 151
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2008
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ oe
$IGN
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of an annual request for a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for
activities scheduled to take place July 3 and 4, 2008 for the Minneapolis-Richfield American
Le ion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
license for the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501
Portland Avenue, for activities scheduled to take place July 3 and 4,
2008.
•
II. BACKGROUND
On June 3, 2008, the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 submitted
their annual request for a temporary license to serve on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
for the Fourth of July activities. The required licensing fees have been received.
This request is in conjunction with the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration and has
been organized by the Fourth of July Committee. Their plans are to have an open
house and community dance outside on their property, and they would like to serve
refreshments, including beer. Their food menu will consist of items such as hot
dogs, hamburgers, sloppy joes, pork chops, brats, chicken wings, onion rings,
french fries; riblets, corn, ice cream, cookies, candy, soda, and water.
Licensing requirements for the preparation and service of food for this event is
covered under the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion's annual food license.
0624 American Legion Fourth of July Malt Liquor License
• The applicant has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure
that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington
sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food
handling.
Their current liquor license is only valid for the serving of alcohol within the
establishment and does not cover the exterior serving. Proof of liquor liability
insurance coverage to cover the exterior of their property has been provided,
showing Westport Insurance Corporation affording the coverage.
Richfield Public Safety staff met with management from the American Legion to
address some specific Public Safety issues and concerns. They determined that
due to the roundabout, all traffic exiting the American Legion will be required to
make aright-hand turn onto Portland to help eliminate traffic congestion. In
addition, Portland Avenue (between 66th Street and HWY 62) will be closed from 8
p.m. thru 12:00 a.m. (Midnight). Therefore, entrance into the American Legion
parking lot will not be allowed after 8 p.m. They did agree, however, to allow taxi
service into the American Legion throughout the evening but only a limited number
of cabs will be allowed.
The Public Safety Department did not receive any calls for this establishment in
connection with this celebration for the previous year.
S III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a
temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license.
• The City has previously issued temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses in conjunction with the Fourth of July Celebration.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• That. the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor cease no later than Midnight.
• All traffic exiting the establishment must make aright-hand turn onto
Portland.
• No entrance into the American Legion parking lot will be allowed after
8 p.m.
• The applicant has hired a professional security organization to
oversee all hours of operation for this event.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request of a temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor license. This would
result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those
concerning the temporary sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor, in conjunction with
the Fourth of July Celebration. However, the Public Safety Department has
not found any basis for denial.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Roger Wysong, Legion Manager; has been notified of the date for Council
consideration of this request.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 6D
REPORT # 152
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
.]
JUNE 24, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~ .
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY n/
MANAGER: ~V
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request by The Church of the Assumption for atemporary on-sale 3.2
percent malt liquor license and a public dance license for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held
Au ust 16 and 17, 2008.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
license and a public dance license for The Church of the Assumption
for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 16 and 17. 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2008, The Church of the Assumption submitted requests for a public
dance license and a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor for their
annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 16 and 17, 2008. The required licensing fees
have been received.
They will be serving such food items as nachos, sweet corn, wraps, popcorn, hot
dogs, tacos, roast beef, pizza, fried pork skins and potato chips. The Church of the
Assumption has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure
that proper food handling practices are followed.
• Licensing requirements for the preparation and service of food for this event is
covered under The Church of the Assumption's annual food license.
The event will take place from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturday, August 16 and from
11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, August 17, 2008.
0624 Assumption Fun Fiesta Licenses
Liquor Liability insurance coverage has been provided showing The Catholic Mutual
• Relief Society as affording the coverage.
The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption
Fun Fiesta.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these
licenses.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Necessary fees have been paid and insurance coverage has been
submitted.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
• E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any
basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these
licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fiesta.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• The Church of the Assumption staff/representative
•
Ir~
~_J
AGENDA SECTION: pIIBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM # $
REPORT # 153
~~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
JUNE 24, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATU
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: .ul
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding vacation of a utility easement at 800 66th Street West (formerly
Brid eman's Restaurant .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the
attached Transitory Ordinance vacating a portion of a utility easement
at 800 66th Street West. (Continued from May 13, 2008 and June 10,
2008.)
II. BACKGROUND
On August 27, 1984 the City Council approved the vacation of Graham Avenue
between 65th and 66th Streets. This vacation reserved a utility easement across
the entire vacated right-of-way.
The owners of 800 66th Street West have petitioned the City to vacate a portion of
the reserved utility easement. A reduced utility easement will increase the options
for building placement in the event of redevelopment of the site.
• As is standard procedure for easement vacations, the Hennepin County Registrar of
Deeds and Titles and public utility companies were notified of the proposed
vacation. Upon their review, the proposed vacation area was reduced to avoid
buried facilities. The owners intend to cap and remove the water main within the
062408 - 2nd Reading easement vacation 800 66th St W
easement area that is no longer required. The Public Works Department has
reviewed and approved this proposal.
A utility easement will remain m place for land surrounding sanitary sewer facilities.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Code Section 820.05 states that the Council shall by resolution
acknowledge receipt of any petition for vacation. A resolution was
approved on April 8, 2008.
• The Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds and Titles and public utilities
have received notice of the proposed vacation and necessary
easements have been reserved.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Public Works Department has determined that the City has no
need for such an extensive utility easement. A utility easement for
sanitary sewer purposes shall be maintained over the area indicated
in the attached exhibits.
• The sanitary sewer within this easement area shall be lined in
accordance with Public Works requirements.
• The water main within the proposed vacation area is no longer
necessary and shall be capped and removed by the applicant at their
expense.
C. FINANCIAL
• All work shall be undertaken at the owner's expense.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Deny vacation of the easement with a finding that there is a public need for
said easement.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Transitory Ordinance
• Survey
• • Zoning and land use maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Owner representative
VII
BILL NO.
• TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
800 66t" Street West, Richfield
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: The following described land is subject to an easement for public
utility purposes:
All that part of Graham Avenue as recorded in Book 2052 of Deeds, Page
639, embraced within Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 642, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Sec. 2: -The City Council has determined the petition for vacation to be
adequate by Resolution No.
Sec. 3: There is no public need for a utility easement over a portion of the
land, as described in section 1.
Sec. 4: The water main located within the land described in section 1 is no
• longer necessary and shall be capped and removed by the owner of said land.
Sec. 5: There are additional existing utility lines within a portion of the land
described in section 1, and there is a continuing need for an easement over this
area.
Sec. 6: A utility easement shall be maintained over, under and across the
following described lands:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 642, Hennepin County, Minnesota
lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast
corner of said Tract A; thence South 59 degrees 44 minutes 30 seconds
West on an assumed bearing along the south line of said Tract A, a distance
of 13.50 feet to the point of beginning of said line; then North 15 degrees 30
minutes 31 seconds West 292.88 feet to the north line of said Tract A and
there said line terminates; and
A 10-foot wide strip of land, the southerly line of which begins at a point on
the easterly right of way line of Graham Avenue approximately 45 feet
northerly of the SE corner of Tract A; to a point on the westerly right of way
line of Graham Avenue approximately 2 feet northwesterly of a point on the
southerly line of Tract A, which point is 13.50 feet southwesterly of the SE
• corner, Registered Land Survey No. 642, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Sec. 7: Upon the effective date as provided in section 8 below, the public
utility easement described in section 1 above is vacated, except for that portion
which lies within the area described in section 6 above. The City expressly retains
i
ment over the lands described in section 6 above, includin the
a public utility ease g
. right to enter to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend to public
utility lines; provided that the utility shall promptly repair any damage resulting from
such maintenance, repair, replacement, or removal.
Sec. 8: The vacation of the utility easement is effective 30 days following
publication of the ordinance.
Sec. 9: The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of
vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin
County Registrar of Titles or Hennepin County Recorder, as appropriate.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this June 24, 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
:]
LEGEND o 2s so goo
!i%%/%//,~//%%ii%/~/, EASEMENT RESERVATION AREA
SCALE IN FEET
REVISED: 5/9/08 WATERMAIN, GAS k UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LOCATION .
Design File: Checked By GRAHAM AVENUE
0068 DBO
D me: Drown by VACATION/SANITARY SEWER ALLIANT
70088resv-eos.owq LT EASEMENT RESERVATION ~ ENGINEERING. INC.
233 FARii AVE. SOUTH. SUITE 3Un
Dace: Score: HOO 66TH ST. W. MINYEAPOLIS. MN 55~1b
snzioe I~-so• RICHFIELD, MN PHONEl612175H-3oeo
FAX (6121 TSli•3U94
800 66th St W -Context
i~,_ - ~1
c'-
C
~ ~~
~~
___----
M
d
~ ~
N
L
C ~~^ ~l
8
•
0 205 410 820 1,230 1,640
Feet
_ ~i
-. ~_
=i_
-t ;_,
it~~.
1 800 66th St W I
!~ N
W ~ E
C
- asemen aca ion eques
Surrounding Zoning
$'S
MR-3
R
~'
MR-2 ~~O
MR-2
65th St W
C-1 PMR
R t PMR
O
1 ~ C-2
PMR-1
MR- C-2
66th St W
R1
R-1 PM R
R PC-2
R PMR
R
PC-2
LEGEND
C-1 -Community Commercial
C-2 -General Commercial
PC-2 -Planned General Commercial
R -Single-Family Residential
. R-1 -Low Density Single-Family Residential N
MR-2 -Multi-Family Residential
PMR -Planned Multi-Family Residential
PMR-1 -Planned Two-Family Residential W ~ E
0 62.5 125 250 375 500 S
Feet
- asemen aca ion equ
Surrounding Land Use
~~ (~
APT
PRK
O~
~~
APT
APT
65th St W
~~ COM MXLND
RES ~ APT
P p~
P
COM
DPLX
P
P
COM
66th St W
RE APT
APT
T
MXLND
PRK APT
PRK
APT
LEGEND
COM -Commercial
RES -Single-Family Residential
DPLJC -Duplex
APT -Multi-Family Residential
MXLAND -Mixed Use N
PRK -Park
W ~ E
0 62.5 125 250 375 500 S
Feet
•
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2008
PDBLIC HEARING
9
154
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: ilwG.~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing on the adoption of a five-year. capital improvement budget and plan for the City,
prepared in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521 (the "Plan") and the
issuance of general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") to finance capital improvements under the
Plan.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the
resolution adopting the five-year capital improvement budget and
plan for the City prepared in compliance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.521 and provide for the preliminary approval of the
issuance of general obligation bonds to finance capital improvements
of the Plan
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield's Capital Improvement Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
is a comprehensive list of major improvements identified as necessary to meet the
needs of the community over afive-year period. The Plan is organized into a current
year Capital Improvement Budget (2008) and afour-year Capital Improvement Plan
(2009-2012).
i The Plan process provides a means for identifying annual project needs and
priorities. Projects are identified through Key Financial Strategy planning,
discussions of various city commissions, and City staff. From this process, the City
0624CIP Bonds
Manager compiles a preliminary report of estimated costs, scope and funding
sources for the projects.
• This report is then presented at a meeting of the Planning Commission which
reviews the projects and scheduling based on the following considerations; the
community's need for the project, priority and scheduling of the proposed projects,
and the conformance of the projects to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, is then returned to the
City Manager who submits it in summary form to the City Council as part of the
current year budget process.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the current
Plan.
• The Plan is included in summary form in the 2008 Adopted Budget
and in the annual budget message.
• The Plan includes "capital improvements" as defined by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 475.521 and Capital Improvement Bonds are a
projected source of funding.
• A public hearing on the Plan and the potential issuance of Capital
Improvement Bonds must be held.
• The Council has the option to add or delete projects from the Plan or
• change the scheduling and priority of allocation of funds.
• If the Council should add a project, in accordance with State statutes,
they would need to refer the new project to the Planning Commission
for review.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds is the source of funding
for the construction of a new Police/Fire City Hall Facility.
C. FINANCIAL
• The sum total of the 2008 Capital Improvement Budget is
$37,666,440.
• The sum total of the 2009-2012 Capital Improvement Plan is
$63,001.410.
• The cost of the new Police/Fire/City Hall Facility is estimated at
$21,650,000.
• It is planned to issue Capital Improvement Bonds over a period
several years in order to stay within the City's Bank Qualified Debt
.limits and to allow the possible issuance of bonds for other projects.
• The maximum principal amount of bonds allowed to be issued under
the Plan is $22,750,000.
• The level of bonding takes into consideration not only the estimated
cost of the project, but also the need fora house purchase and
demolition, potential cost increase of construction materials due to
volatility of commodity market, potential unknowns of site of project
and inflation. It is hoped that the actual level of bonding will be less
than the maximum principal amount listed.
• D. LEGAL
• The Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan and the projects
included for compliance with .the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
• Minnesota Statute, Section 475.521 allows municipalities to issue
bonds for certain capital improvements included in a capital
improvement plan.
• Under the statute, capital improvements are defined as the acquisition
or betterment of public lands, buildings or other improvements for the
purpose of a city hall, town hall, library, public safety facility and public
works facility. In addition, an improvement must have an expected
useful life of five years or more to qualify.
• The statute also imposes requirements that must be met in order for a
municipality to issue capital improvement bonds. These requirements
are:
o A public hearing must be held on the. plan and approved by the
governing body.
o A public hearing must be held by the municipality on the issuance
of bonds and approved by three-fifths of the members of a five
member governing body.
o Issuance of capital improvement bonds is subject to referendum
approval if a petition signed by voters equal to five percent of
votes cast in the municipality in the last general election is filed
• with the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing.
o The Plan must cover at least afive-year period beginning with the
date of its adoption. The Plan must set forth the estimated
schedule, timing, and details of specific improvements by year,
together with the estimated cost, the need for the improvement,
and sources of revenue to pay for the improvement.
• City legal counsel has .reviewed the Plan for compliance with State
statutes. '
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• None.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
• Summary of 2008 Capital Improvement Budget and 2009-2012 Capital
Improvement Plan.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTIO NO.
ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND PROVIDING PRELIMINARY
• APPROVAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS THEREUNDER
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521 (the "Act"),
cities are authorized to adopt a capital improvement plan and carry out programs for
the financing of capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), has caused to be
prepared the Capital Improvement Budget and Plan for years 2009 through 2012
(the "Capital Improvement Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City Council of the City (the "Council")
has conducted a duly noticed public hearing .regarding adoption of the Capital
Improvement Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Act and the issuance of
general obligation bonds thereunder in a maximum principal amount of
$22,750,000; and
WHEREAS, in considering the Capital Improvement Plan, the Council has
considered for each project and for the overall Capital Improvement Plan:
1. the condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the projected need for
repair and replacement;
2. the likely demand for the improvement;
3. the estimated cost of the improvement;
4: the available public resources;
5. the level of overlapping debt in the City;
6. the relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds;
• 7. operating costs of the proposed improvements; and
8. alternatives for providing services more efficiently through shared facilities with
other local government units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA:
1. The Capital Improvement Plan is hereby approved.
2.- City staff are hereby authorized to do all other things and take all other
actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Capital Improvement
Plan in accordance with any applicable laws and regulations.
3. The City gives preliminary approval to the issuance of the bonds in the
maximum principal amount of $22,750,000 to be issued over a period of several
years, provided that if a petition requesting a vote on issuance of the bonds, signed
by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the last general election, is filed
with City Clerk by July 24, 2008, the City may issue the bonds only after obtaining
approval of a majority of voters voting on the question at an election.
Adopted. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24t" day
of June, 2008.
• Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
_1°~'~
•
2008
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
2009-2012
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
~~
•
2008 Capital Improvement Budget
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -STATUTE 475.521
City Maintenance Facility ($12,908,500)
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repay
Park Maintenance ($800,000)
Lincoln Field 8~ Other Ballfield Improvements
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction
Liquor Operation Capital Improvements
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
$ 1,801,100 U
$ 1,801,100.
$ 198,000 R
100,000 R
50,000 R
102,000 R
50,000 R
$ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Reconstruction of 66th St 8~ Portland Ave ($8,900,000) $ 2,226,000 F
964,000 M
210,000 C
Replace Lyndale Bridge over 1-494 ($32,865,000) 20,000,000 F
5,000,000 S
76th Street Pedestrian/Bike Bridge 369,600 F
196,200 M
46,200 C
Richfield Parkway-Phase 2 900,000 M
Retaining Wall Replacement 100,000 M
100,000 C
Traffic Signal at 77th Street 8~ Colfax 200,000 SA
Mill 8~ Overlay Bituminous Streets 400,000 FF
• Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 300,000 FF
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT $ 31,012,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Replacement Central Garage Equipment $ 516,000 TL
Technology Replacement 132,340 TL
Fire Station 11 Exhaust Ventilation, Replace Roof 175,000 U
Storm Water Pond MaintenancelHabitat Enhancement 700,000 U
Girard Alley Storm Water Improvements 330,000 U
Augsburg Park/73rd 8~ 1st Storm Water Improvements 1,175,000 U
Water Meter Replacement Program ($2,500,000) 1,250,000 U
Water Plant Clarifier Trough Replacement 75,000 U
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $ 4,353,340
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $ 37,666,440
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
(C) Hennepin County $ 356,200
(F) Federal Funding 22,595,600
(FF) Franchise Fees 700,000
(M) Municipal State Aids 2,160,200
(R) Special Revenue 500,000
(S) State Grants 5,000,000
(SA) Special Assessments 200,000
(TL) General Tax Levy 648,340
. (U) .User Fees 5,506,100
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $ 37,666,440
~~ `'f
2009 Capital Improvement Plan
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -STATUTE 475.521 PROJECT EXPENDITURE
• New City Hall ($21,850,000) 10,000,000 CI
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 10,000,000
RECREATION 8~ OPEN SPACE
Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repay $ 204,000 R
Park Maintenance ($800,000) 100,000 R
Lincoln Field 8~ Other Ballfield Improvements 121,000 R
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction 25,000 R
Liquor Operation Capital Improvements 50,000 R
TOTAL REC. 8~ OPEN SPACE $ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
76th Street Parkway -11th Ave. to Cedar Ave. $ 1,100,000 M
Richfield Parkway -Phase 2 1,357,000 M
Mill 8~ Overlay Bituminous Streets 400,000 FF
Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 300,000 FF
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT $ 3,157,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Replacement Central Garage Equipment $ 535,760 TL
Technology Replacement 98,280 TL
Logan Tower Painting 750,000 U
Storm Water Pond Maintenance/Habitat Enhancement 700,000. U
• TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $ 2,084,040
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $ 15,741,040
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
(CI) Capital Improvement Bonds
(FF) Franchise Fees
(M) Municipal State Aids
(R) Special Revenue
(TL) General Tax Levy
(U) User Fees
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
10,000,000
700,000
2,457,000
500,000
634,040
1,450,000
$ 15,741,040
•
i
~"~
2010 Capital Improvement Plan
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -STATUTE 475.521 PROJECT EXPENDITURE
New City Hall ($21,850,000) $ 11,850,000 CI
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 11,850,000
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repay $ 210,750 R
Outdoor Spray Pool 150,000 R
Park Maintenance ($800,000) 53,250 R
Lincoln Field & Other Ballfield Improvements 36,000 R
Liquor Operation Capital Improvements 50,000 R
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE $ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Railroad Signal at 76th Street $ 149,580 F
16,620 M
69th Street Sidewalk 750,000 M
Mill 8~ Overlay Bituminous Streets 400,000 FF
Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 300,000 FF
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT $ 1,616,200
•
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Replacement Central Garage Equipment $ 551,830 TL
Technology Replacement 128,620 TL
Paint Penn Water Tower 400,000 U
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $ 1,080,450
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $ 15,046,650
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
(CI) Capital Improvement Bonds $ 11,850,000
(F) Federal Funding 149,580
(FF) Franchise Fees 700,000
(M) Municipal State Aids 766,620
(R) Special Revenue 500,000
(TL) General Tax Levy 680,450
(U) User Fees 400,000
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $ 15,046,650
~~
• 2011 Capital Improvement Plan
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -STATUTE 475.521 PROJECT EXPENDITURE
$ -
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ -
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Park Maintenance ( 800,000) 100,000 R
Lincoln Field & Other Ballfield Improvements 47,500 R
Replace Outdoor Lighting at Taft Park 250,000 R
Amphitheater 52,500 R
Liquor Operation Capital Improvements 50,000 R
TOTAL REC. 8~ OPEN SPACE $ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Lyndale Bridge Stage II-77th St./Lyndale Intersection $ 1,600,000 F
400,000 M
Mill 8~ Overlay Bituminous Streets 400,000 FF
Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 300,000 FF
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT $ 2,700,000
•
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Replacement Central Garage Equipment $ 568,380 TL
Technology Replacement 131,920 TL
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $ 700,300
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $ 3,900,300
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
(F) Federal Funding $ 1,600,000
(FF) Franchise Fees 700,000
(M) Municipal State Aids 400,000
(R) Special Revenue 500,000
(TL) General Tax Levy 700,300
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $ 3,900,300
•
~-~
2012 Capital Improvement Plan
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -STATUTE 475.521 PROJECT EXPENDITURE
$ -
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Park Maintenance ( 800,000)
Lincoln Field 8~ Other Ballfield Improvements
Ice Arena Rink 1 Bleachers
Arena Bathroom Partitions/Sinks
Mini-Golf Roch 8~ Hole Foundations
Wood Lake Carpet
Community Center Boiler
Community Center Carpet
Community Center Kitchen Refrigeration
Liquor Operation Capital Improvements
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
100,000 R
143,000 R
50,000 R
23,000 R
82,000 R
20,000 R
15,000 R
12,000 R
5,000 R
50,000 R
$ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY.IMPROVEMENT
77th Street Underpass of TH 77 ($25,000,000) $ 5,600,000 F
• 1,400,000 M
Mill & Overlay Bituminous Streets 400,000 FF
Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 300,000 FF
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT $ 7,700,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Replacement Central Garage Equipment $ 585,430 TL
Technology Replacement 100,000 TL
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $ 685,430
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
(F) Federal Funding
(FF) Franchise Fees
(M) Municipal State Aids
(R) Special Revenue
(TL) General Tax Levy
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
$ 8,885,430
$ 5,600,000
700,000
1,400,000
500,000
685,430
$ 8,885,430
•
~- a
i Capital Improvement Plan -Beyond 2012
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -STATUTE 475.521 PROJECT EXPENDITURE
$ -
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ -
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE $ -
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
77th Street Underpass of TH 77 ($25,000,000) 14,400,000 F
1,000,000 M
2,600,000 S
Mill & Overlay Bituminous Streets 400,000 FF
Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 300,000 FF
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT $ 18,700,000
•
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Replacement Central Garage Equipment $ 602,990 TL
Technology Replacement 125,000 TL
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $ 727,990
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $ 19,427,990
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
(F) Federal Funding $ 14,400,000
(FF) Franchise Fees 700,000
(M) Municipal State Aids 1,000,000
(R) Special Revenue -
(S) State Grants 2,600,000
(TL) General Tax Levy 727,990
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $ 19,427,990
~~ 1
LJ
LL ~ fq LL LL
•
•
fD N
m O ~
6 N
U ~j o
O m
~ m w w w
0
N
w w w
7 ~
D ~
N
D
w w w
7
f.)
u O O o O
~ O O O ' O
D O E00 ~ ONO OMD
j N
~ ~
7
~ w w w
u
~
'-~ U
0 0 0 0
~ °
° o °
o
o
D O O
O o
O
O O O O O
N O ' O O
N w w w
O O O ' O
N
'p
o
~ U ~ ro e
o a
o
O
N N
a N N
f
.1
w w w w w
O O O O O
m N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . m C ~ . . . . . . O O O O O O
Q N
c E ~ °e °o_ °m O~ ~
V C ~ ~ N fp
w w w w F m w w
K K K K K LL' R' K R' R' LL~ LL LL
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
' • O O ' ' O O O O O O ' O O O O O O O O O O
O~ N N OND ~ O ~ N toff O o 0 N O O O O O
n n n ~ °m ~ O tO'f n°
N H r 1~
w w w N w
R' K Q: ~ R' LL E LL LL
O O O O O O O O
' ' O M ' O ' ' ' ' ' ' N ' O O O O O O O O O
O 1~ O N' O O O O O O O O O
~~ N O N '~ ~ N ~ t00~ O V M r
N ~ N
w w w N w
LL' K K K R' LL~~ LL LL
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M O N O O O O O fO N 0 O O O
n O N O ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' O O O O h f0 O O O N
O' O th t0 10f1 0 O O O ~ ~~ - 0 0 t0
fy ~ tp M N O O h V M i0
N
w w w w w
LL' LL' K LL' LL' ~ ~ ILLl. LL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
o o 0 0 ~" o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o N c o 0 0 o r o o ~
N O' ~ N N y h N O r M O PO') r
N r r M
w w w w w w
O O O O O O 'O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O
n O N N O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 O O fn O O N f0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
~' tMff ~ N N N h OND ~ O ~ N N O O O O J fA ' N V ~ 10ff 0 0p 0 0 0 0 0 n
O M M N N O O O a O ~ ~ h~ Q 0 0 t0 O an O
N N N O O ~ N N N N ~- M
r v
www w w w w w w w w w w w wl wII wl wIl I w w w w w w w w w w w w l w
O
N n
'~ ~
z o
p o ~ ~ w
m U
a
w
w
i~ ~ fu
E
y
w
w
a a
E t a c °' a
c rn
v~ z ~ c U zO W o d _~ A Y a ~~ o. w
E twi
W ~
O m ~
O ~Q W c 0 0~ tf OI (/1 y O d N N
C
L E
O H O
E ~
O
W C W G ~
9 L LL
O O r <
~ O
K ~ E
m } U v > ,~ w d o of t0 m o U Y >o A Z
~
0
}
O.
Q m
Z W
~ N p . L J J C m= M Y C
°d
C N ~ O e e r
E ~ U
Q
E' 0 d m
> U
a e c
~
` 11~ '
J 1 E y O Z E~ C p U U Y
O O C 'O ~
° m U ~ V d
~
F s a d~ a
O o o d m a~ a~ ~
~' ~' ~
O
9 m m d ~+ R z
Q
v ~ J ~C. N J C C O > >
O O f0 C C
~
E E
° r J O J p, J
N
3~
fu ~ v "' a
~ ~-
O o o
~ a
C
o Q Q ~_
~ E E E
>>~ c m m m ru 5 0 0 o a o~~
E O v O a
~
K O
Z V .~.i ~ O O d J U C V V ~ U U K a~ J~ "' H
r N M O N f0 n O 01 O~ ~ ~ ~' ~
0
0
0
0
`m m
c
~j .~ m
c °o
w
h
y `O,
R
z
~ J
a
~ .N'
fo
m Z
w
~
m
a> o.
~ v
i
s x ~
~ o
1- N U
~ A
r F
O
O }
O~ `~° N
m
a ~
°c o
~
~
a a >. La L
W fo Ol
9 R E ~
S
~ m n Y y m m~ }
a~~ C
m 9
~
N m i
LL
3 A rn
a v
ti m
~ = m
' O
O v
~
' 8f >
;a
O =
-. O
_ ~ 4
r t ~ 'WO
L N
s eE ~
-
ea R'
r C
' c
~'
J n _
~ N
K
R f
o ~
~~ ~ N N N N N O
H
~-~®
u
J J
F H
O O O O O O N W O 001 001 W
0 0 0 0 0 YN p 01 ' O ' O1 01 W
O O O O O O. N O ~ N N N
P O tO P ~ E v ~o n r r
~i a6 V ~j p
O m
w F m N w w w
J J
F F
O O O O MOq O P0') M {09
O O O O Q ' O ' O V O
O O O O N ~ O O O O
m r e r c ~ ~ ~
Yf ~ P N
w w w w w
H F ~
O O O O 00D N O O O
O O O O M ' 01 ' M M M
O' O O O ao O O O
t00 r? n N r A n n
r N N
w w w w w
F ~ F ~
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O N O M N O N O O h
0) O O O O' O
~ A n i0 0 ~ r V O f0O V O
N
w w w w w
F ~ r 7
O O O t00 O OOD O p 0 ~ O V
' O O O 1~ O N ' O O O O O
°n v ~ o n °n °i n o m a o
N M N N r N
w w w w w
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0) O N O O W O N O O O
10 O f0 O N 0) M O O O O N N O N
Oi O M O M' ~' O' {'! O O OD W O 0)
V O N O 1~ J ~ ~ O O O N n N N h
h 10 0 t0 W Q O W h 10 O h N {T 0) N
N P7 t0. N ~ 0 U N' ~ ' t+1 ~ 1q"
F a
U
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
m A
E t
a w
w w ;°• W
~ ~ J ~ Z W Q'
A ~
~ f
'O N 7 LL (~ C N d ~ J N
O v A E 3 o v r
01 N ..d. Y Q: ~~ ~ O H Q m
C LL N ~ O. ~ d O O. d N V Z
o d c Z o. c~ a~ m 3 J a p
LL N io m C C ~ m ~` m Z
t d Z y d T c~ d m
E O ~C1 C9 ~ E A p C Ol a J LL LL
N ` C N LL y ?~ d O J M m J
~ 7 q J v o a J Q A a
m LL~ Q iC € C f ~~ Q
u. LL~ N ~ y' y H 1 a O y j 0
• N N N N N
' 0 00i 00f
, ' O O O ' O W
' 00!
0 0 0 O N N
O N
r n N
v °v 1. o fo n v
Ol ~ N Ol
w w w
°o °o v e °o Oo 00 °o a v
u°1 ti m aOD °m ~ O °n ~ w
A 0) I[! r 00
w w w
0 O O O O O
O O O
O O M O
M ' O O O O M M
1°n °n ~ °a m ~ °v 'v °n °m
N M r M
w w w
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 10
O N R 0 10
O tD O Q1 O N O
O Yi O O) O
' h
0 O
0 H
t0
O t0 O O t0' O Oi O t0 O O O t0
O OD
v1 m N O
o o 10 0 0 0/ O
~ i n n v1 W
m O
e V
o
' ;
~ . ~
w Iwll ~w
O O aO O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O ' O O O O O
u°1 m o o n °o °n a n m v n
M N O Ip O N r 10
~ m
w w w r
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m
r
O N N O? O 10 0 tN0 O O N O V ~
O M OD' O O Oi O' t+l O O OD O '
O h h Y1 O 10 O O N O O N N O 'O
O O) N OD O O) h 10 0 0 t0 O O) O 41
N M N N tM0 N N t•1 O) N' N M ~~ m
C
m
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
w
0
v
m
'o
n a
h d n a
e
H
U C m y 9 V) 9
W 7 U e W 7
~ ~ C V) ~ m = C
0. m ~ ~ m 9 O O
O
N
r
~ y 0 m Q j C O ~ G Z 9
c~ E F ~ '~ 1i m p
~ a m i o- o. ~ m y m ~ m Z o
v1 O ~, z o Q E a» a a ~' ro LL U
O 3 !pa E J Ta N V .V W C9 j LL J 1
LL- Q °a v~~ m ~~ m~ U
O c/ ~ O A° LL~ N R ~- ~ O ~°•
U LL y F p
LLB' Q: d U~ U 1" LL~ K N~ ~
•
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLDTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 10
REPORT # 155
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2008
r~
LJ
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for
alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently unden-vent alcohol compliance checks,
conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing for the establishments
that failed alcohfll compliance checks and approve the attached
. resolution for the first time violating establishments: Y
• Suspending the license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days; and,
• Levying a fine against the establishments in the amount of $1,000; and,
• Requiring a meeting with the Public Safety Director to present an
individual establishment plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of
.this kind; and,
• Requiring a manager to attend an alcohol compliance and sales
awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public
Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
• Conduct a disciplinary hearing for the establishments that failed alcohol
compliance checks and approve the attached resolution for the second
time violating establishment.
• Suspending the license to sell alcohol for seven (7) consecutive days;
and.
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
SERVICES MANAGER
0624 Disciplinary Action for Alcohol Compliance Failures
•
• Levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,750; and,
• Requiring a meeting with the Public Safety Director to present an
individual establishment plan to ensure. eliminating any future actions of
this kind; and,
• Requiring a manager to attend an alcohol compliance and sales
awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public
Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2008, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks
at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by one underage youth that was
20 years of age. These compliance checks were the first compliance checks
conducted in 2008. Richfield Public Safety staff made arrangements for the minor
to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In five instances, an
underage youth was served alcohol. In all cases, the server was over 18 years of
age.
The businesses that made a sale to an underage youth on April 3, 2008 are:
• Aldi Foods - 6310 Penn Avenue South
• • Champps - 790 W. 66th Street
• Patrick's French Bakery - 2928 West 66th Street
• Richfield U.S. - 6744 Penn Avenue South
• VFW - 6715 Lakeshore Dr.
This is a first offense for Aldi's and Patrick's French Bakery. They have not had
prior violations.
This is a first offense for the Champps. Technically, it is a fourth violation, but
because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous violations on
July 16, 1999, November 19, 1999, and April 4, 2002, it would count as a first
violation.
This is the first violation for Richfield U.S. (formerly named Mobile Mart).
Technically, it is their fifth violation, but because of the time that has elapsed
between now and the previous violations on March 23, 1999, November 17, 1999,
April 4, 2002 and November 3, 2004, it would count as a first violation.
This is the second violation for the VFW. Technically, it is a fifth violation, but due
to the time that has elapsed between now and the previous violation on July 15,
1999, August 8, 2000, November 9, 2004 and April 13, 2007, it would count as a
second violation.
At no time did the minor consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their ID
and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age.
Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy or not busy, in an effort to
determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have
made a difference at either time.
After each attem t successful or unsuccessful the officers iden ifi
p , t ed themselves to
the clerks and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was
unsuccessful in securing. alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a
good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The
action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the
businesses that hold a license to sell alcohol within the City.
The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the
costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses
punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also
recommended that 15% of the punitive, fines be designated for future alcohol and
tobacco education efforts within the community.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Resolution No.9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol
license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be
expected when violations- occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors.
• Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the first time violating
• establishments' license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days
and levy a fine against the establishments in the amount of $1,000 for
the first violation. Staff is also proposing that the first time violating
establishments attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety
Director to present their individual establishment's plan to ensure
eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, one employee,
preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and sales
awareness training session, provided by a private firm approved by
Public Safety. The cost of the training is to be paid for by the
establishment.
• Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the second time
violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for seven (7)
consecutive days and levy a fine against the establishment in the
amount of $1,750 for the second violation. Staff is also proposing that
the second time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting
with the Public Safety Director and to also conduct a mandatory
alcohol and sales awareness training session with all of their
employees. This training will be provided by a private firm, approved
by Public Safety, with all costs of the training to be paid for by the
establishment.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell
alcohol to underage youth.
• Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council
against several establishments have been severe. This was done to
send a message to the establishments and the community that the
Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the
community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly
valued.
• Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health
support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect
the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and
their well-being are a high priority in this City.
C. FINANCIAL
• All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through
the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol
compliance check.
• Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future
alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
• IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments
for the sale of alcohol to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary
action against the establishment. This would, however, send a
message to the community that children and their well-being are not
a priority in Richfield.
• The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against
the establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that
would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in
Resolution No. 9511
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution No. for Aldi Foods
• Resolution No. for Champps
• Resolution No. for Patrick's French Bakery
• Resolution No. for Richfield U.S.
• Resolution No. for the VFW
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Representatives from the establishments are expected to be in
attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing
S regarding the City Council meeting date.
I®-1
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE
FOR ALDI FOODS, 6310 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY
FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Aldi Foods ("Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor
License from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2008, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department
conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the
compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and;
WHEREAS, this is their first alcohol compliance check failure; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on June 24,
2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension. and penalty imposed by
this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
• 1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License is hereby suspended for a
period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the
Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance.
2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before July 24, 2008, the
Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the
amount of $1,000.
3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by July 24, 2008 to present a written action
plan to ensure future compliance.
4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and
sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public
Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of June 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
1n-~-
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR
CHAMPP'S, 790 WEST 66TH STREET, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST
TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Champp's ("Licensee") holds a On-Sale and Sunday Liquor license
from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2008 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department
conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the
compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and;
WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth compliance check failure; but because of
the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure.
Their previous failures were on July 16, 1999, November 19, 1999, and April 4, 2002 and;
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on June 24,
2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by
this resolution.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
1. The Licensee's On-Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses are hereby suspended for a
period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the
Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance.
2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before July 24, 2008, the Licensee
shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of
$1,000.
3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by July 24, 2008 to present a written action plan
to ensure future compliance.
4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and
sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety,
with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of June, 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
• ,ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
I {~ ~ ,°'
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR
LICENSES FOR PATRICK'S FRENCH BAKERY, INC. D/B/A/ PATRICK'S BAKERY
AND CAFE, 2928 WEST 66TH STREET, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR
FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Patrick's French Bakery (Licensee") holds an On-Sale Wine and a 3.2
Percent Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2008 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department
conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the
compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor; and
WHEREAS, this is their first compliance check failure; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on June 24,
2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by
this resolution.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
1. The Licensee's On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Licenses are hereby
suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be
determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their
Council appearance.
2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before July 24, 2008, the Licensee
shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of
$1,000.
3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by July 24, 2008 to present a written action plan
to ensure future compliance.
4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and
sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety,
with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of June, 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
• ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
to-~
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE
FOR RICHFIELD U.S., 6744 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL
PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Richfield U.S. ("Licensee") holds aOff-Sale Malt Liquor license from
the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2008 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department
conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during -the
compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor; and
WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth compliance check failure but because of
the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure.
Their previous failures were on July 16, 1999, November 19, 1999, and April 4, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on June 24,
2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by
this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
• as follows:
1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor License is hereby suspended for a
period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the
Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance.
2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before July 24, 2008, the Licensee
shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of
$1,000.
3. Meet with the Acting Director of Public Safety by July 24, 2008 to present a written
action plan to ensure future compliance.
4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and
sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety,
with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of June, 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
1 ~~~
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES
FOR FRED BABCOCK V.F.W., POST NO 5555, INC., D/B/A FOUR NICKELS FOOD
AND DRINK, 6715 LAKE SHORE DRIVE, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR
SECOND TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Fred Babcock, V.F.W. ("Licensee") holds a Club On-Sale and a
Sunday Liquor license from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2008 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department
conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the
compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor; and
WHEREAS, this is technically their fifth compliance check failure; but because of
the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a second
failure. Their previous failures were on July 15, 1999, August 8, 2000, November 9, 2004,
and April 13, 2007 and;
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on June 24,
2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by
this resolution.
• NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED b the Cit Council of the Ci of Richfield
y y ~
as follows:
1. The Licensee's Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses are hereby suspended for a
period of seven (7) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the
Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance.
2. A civil penalty of $1,750 is hereby imposed. On or before July 24, 2008, the Licensee
shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of
$1,750.
3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by July 24, 2008 to present a written action plan
to ensure future compliance.
4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and
sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety,
with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of June, 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
• ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLDTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT# 1ST
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2008
C:
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolution regarding civil enforcement for
establishments in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks that were conducted by
Richfield Public Safet staff, and failed b sellin tobacco to underage outh.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing and approve the attached
resolutions:
• Suspending the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive
days for the second time violating establishments; and,
• Levying a fine against the establishments in the amount of $400
for a second time violation; and,
• Proposing that the Public Safety Director select the two
consecutive days that the license will be suspended.
II. BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2008, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted tobacco compliance
checks at all of the establishments in Richfield that sell tobacco. They were
assisted by two underage youth that were 16-17 years of age. These compliance
checks were the first checks conducted in 2008.
0624 Disciplinary Action for Tobacco Compliance Failures
On March 20, 2008, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter
• the establishments with undercover police officers. In six instances, tobacco was
sold to underage youth.
The businesses that sold tobacco to underage youth on March 20, 2008 are:
• Gas Plus, 7744 12th Avenue So.
• Worldwide Supermarket, 6501 Nicollet Avenue So.
• Super America, 2913 West 66th St.
• Drug Emporium/Snyder Drug, 780 W 66th St.
• Super America, 826 W 66th St.
• Short Stop Market, 7034 Cedar Ave. So.
This is a second offense for Gas Plus. Technically, it is a fourth offense; however,
due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is
considered a second offense. They will be fined $400 and there will be a two (2)
day suspension. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this business is 17
years old. The clerk did ask for an ID and an ID was shown. Previous failures
occurred on April 19, 2007, November 1, 2004 and May 25, 2004.
Due to the fact that this is the first offense for Worldwide Supermarket, their license
will not be suspended, nor are they required to appear before the City Council.
They will, however, be fined $200. Worldwide Supermarket has had no prior
• failures. Staff has been informed that Worldwide Supermarket is no longer
occupying the establishment, and it has been vacant since around April 1, 2008.
Staff has attempted to contact the owner but has been unsuccessful. The age of
the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 years old. The clerk did request
ID and the buyer's ID was shown.
This is a first offense for Super America, 2913 66th St. W., due to the fact that the
compliance check conducted on March 20, 2008 was outside the of the 24 months
of the first failure on October 31, 2004. Their license will not be suspended and
they are not required to appear before the City Council, however, they will be fined
$200.00. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 years old.
The clerk did request ID and the buyer's ID was shown.
This is a first offense for Drug Emporium/Snyder Drug. Technically, it is a fifth
offense; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check
passes), it is considered a first offense. Their license will not be suspended and
they are not required to appear before the City Council; however, they will be fined
$200. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 years old.
The clerk did request ID and the buyer's ID was shown. Previous failures occurred
on November 24, 2003, May 22, 2003, December 2, 2002, and August 4, 2001.
This is a first offense for Super America, 826 66th Street W., due to the fact that the
• compliance check conducted on March 20, 2008 was outside of the 24 months of
the first failure on December 18, 2000. Their license will not be suspended and
they are not required to appear before the City Council; however, they will be fined
$200. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 17 years old.
The clerk did not request ID and ID was not shown.
• This is a first offense for Short Stop Superette, due to the fact that the compliance
check conducted on March 20, 2008 was outside the of the 24 months of the first
failure on May 25, 2004. Their license will not be suspended and they are not
required to appear before the City Council; however, they will be fined $200. The
age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this store is 16 years old. The clerk did
request ID and the buyer's ID was shown.
At no time did any of the minors use the tobacco products. The youth presented
their IDs, if requested, and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were
of legal age. Establishments were visited at various times, busy or not busy, in an
effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear
to have made a difference at either time.
After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to
the clerks and issued a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was
unsuccessful in purchasing tobacco, the clerk was congratulated by officers. The
employee that sold tobacco will be charged criminally in court. The action being
taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a
license to sell tobacco within the City.
The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the
costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses
punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also
. recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future tobacco and
alcohol education efforts within the community.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code, Section 1146, specifies certain improper conduct
of tobacco license holders and delineates the progressive discipline
that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of
tobacco to minors.
• Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell
tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating
establishment; levying a one against the establishment in the amount
of $400. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director
select the two (2) consecutive days that the license will be suspended.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell
tobacco to underage youth.
• Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health
• support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect
the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and
their well-being are a high priority in this city.
C. FINANCIAL
• • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through
the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing a tobacco
compliance check. Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are
designated for future tobacco and alcohol educational efforts within
the community.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide to take no action against the establishment for the
sale of tobacco to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions
against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the
community that children and their well being are not a priority in Richfield.
• The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the
establishment that sold tobacco to underage youth; however; that would
deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in City Code 1146.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution No. for Gas Plus.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• A representative from the establishment is expected to be in attendance at
the meeting. They have been notified in writing of this requirement.
~l-r
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR GAS PLUS, 774412TH
AVENUE SO., AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME TOBACCO
COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Gas Plus ("Licensee") holds a license to sell tobacco products within
the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2008, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department
conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance
check, an employee of the Licensee sold tobacco to a minor; and
WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth failed tobacco compliance check;
however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is
considered their second offense; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the City Council on June 24, 2008 and
admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
• 1. The Licensee's tobacco license is hereby suspended for a period of two (2)
Passed by the. City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of June 2008.
consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety
Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance.
2. A civil penalty of $400 is hereby imposed. On or before July 24, 2008, the Licensee
shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of
$400.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
•
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 157
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIItECTOR REVIE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider approving a reimbursement resolution for proposed construction of a new
Police/Fire/Cit Hall Facilit .
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing City staff to
incur costs for proposed construction of a new Police/Fire/City Hall
Facility.
•
II. BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City Council appointed a citizen taskforce (CHAT I) to research the
feasibility of remodeling the existing. facility versus building a new one. After
thorough analysis and research, the CHAT I group determined that building a new
facility was the best option.. Lack of space, technology challenges, significant
maintenance costs, and failure to meet ADA regulations were a few of the reasons
the group cited for recommending a new facility.
In August 2005, the City Council appointed a second citizen taskforce (CHAT II).
CHAT II was charged with determining site location, developing preliminary site
plans, and analyzing feasibility.
CHAT II explored numerous sites and determined that the site of the current
Police/Fire/City Hall facility at 6700 Portland Avenue was the optimum site upon
which to build the new facility.
0624reim bursementResol ution
• During the fall of 2008, preliminary design and cost estimates were completed and
two open houses were held in December. The feedback received at the open
houses was shared with the Council during a workession on December 11, 2007.
During its annual goal-setting session in January 2008, the City Council discussed
the new Police/Fire/City Hall project and incorporated it as one of the City's 2008
capital projects.
Two additional public open houses were held on May 1 and 3, 2008 to provide
more opportunity for public feedback on the project.
At the May 13, 2008 City Council meeting, the Council approved the first reading of
the transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and construction of a new
Police/Fire/City Hall facility. -
At the June 10, 2008 City Council meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing
and approved the second reading of the transitory ordinance authorizing the
planning, design, and construction of a new Police/Fire/City Hall facility.
Accordingly, staff has been working to determine funding for the construction of a
new Police/Fire/City Hall Facility, estimated to cost $21,650,000. It is proposed that
funding for the project will come from the issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds
issued under State Statute 475.521. It is planned to-issue Capital Improvement
• Bonds over a period several years in order to stay within the City's Bank Qualified
Debt limits and to allow the possible issuance of bonds for other projects. The
maximum principal amount of bonds allowed to be issued under the Plan is
$22,750,000. The level of bonding takes into consideration not only the estimated
cost of the project, but also the need for a house purchase and demolition, potential
cost increase of construction materials due to volatility of commodity. market,
potential unknowns of site of project and inflation. However, it is hoped that the
actual level of bonding will be less than the maximum principal amount listed.
The Council can authorize certain expenditures as eligible for reimbursement in
anticipation of approval of an issuance of general obligation capital improvement
bonds. Passage of the attached resolution will enable City staff to begin incurring
planning and design costs for the construction of the new Police/Fire/City Hall
facility. The resolution allows costs incurred up to sixty days prior to Council
approval of the resolution to be reimbursed using the proceeds of a general
obligation bond.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• N/A
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The reimbursement resolution makes improvement costs eligible for
reimbursement from the proceeds of the general obligation capital
improvement bonds.
C. FINANCIAL .
• The cost of the new Police/Fire/City Hall is estimated to be
• $21,650,000.
• The total of the General Obligation Capital Improvement bonds to be
issued is over athree-year period is estimated not to exceed a total
of $22,750,000.
• The bonds will be financed by a debt service tax levy.
• The construction of the new Police/Fire/City Hall facility has been
included in the City's Capital Improvement Budget and Capital
Improvement Plan.
D. LEGAL
• NA.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NA.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Delaying approval of the resolution will limit the City's ability to use bond
proceeds towards costs associated with the planning, design, and
construction of a new Police/Fire/City- Hall facility.
. V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None Anticipated.
ra-(
RESOLUTION NO.
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO
REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS
OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2
(the "Reimbursement Regulations") providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to
reimburse .prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met;
and
WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed
temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a tax-
exempt bond;
WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (the
"Declaration") to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the
Reimbursement Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City proposes to undertake the following projects with relation to the City's
• Water Plant (the "Project").
Construction on New Police/Fire/City Hall Facility
2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain
costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount
of $22,750,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance
of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of
the Reimbursement Regulations.
3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any
original expenditure to be subject, to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the
proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs. of issuance of bonds;
(b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or
(c) "preliminary expenditures" up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate
issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to
finance the project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term
"preliminary expenditures" includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and
similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or
rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs
incident to commencement of construction.
• 4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City
based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The
anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds
described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City's budgetary and financial
circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or
is-a
are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set
aside pursuant to the City's budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures.
5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for
purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of June, 2008.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
ATTEST:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
•
•
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
PROP. ORDINANCE
13
158
JUNE 24, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
•
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
d
MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
rua~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Second reading of an ordinance amendment revising the required clear view distance at
certain intersections.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached ordinance amending the Richfield
City Code by repealing. Subsection 509.17 and amending Subsections
925.01, Subd. 4(a) related to clear visibility at intersections.
II. BACKGROUND
The City Code currently regulates traffic visibility at corners as follows (also see
attached illustrations):
o Intersections not controlled in all directions: Nothing shall be erected,
placed, planted or allowed to grow in such a manner as to obstruct vision
between the height of 30 inches and 10 feet above the abutting curb line of
the intersecting streets within a triangular area beginning at the intersection
of the projected curb lines, extending 50 feet along each curb line, thence
connecting.
i o Intersections controlled in all directions (stop signs or traffic signals):
Same as above but for the distance along each curb is decreased to 30 feet.
062408 - 2nd Reading sight triangles
With the adoption of the stop sign policy eliminating uncontrolled intersections
• within the City, it is a good time to review the clear view regulations. The
experience of the Public Works and Community Development Departments is
that in many instances, a 50-foot sight triangle is excessive in terms of sight
lines and also drastically reduces the ability of residents to landscape in their
front and side yards (see attached illustrations). Staff conducted a review of
sight triangle regulations in nearby suburban communities for comparison:
Bloomington: 15 feet along property lines (not curb line)
Eagan: 30 feet
Edina: 30 feet
Hopkins: 30 feet
St. Louis Park: 50 feet
The proposed changes will reduce the sight triangle to 30 feet for intersections
that are controlled in at least two directions, rather than just for intersections
controlled in all four directions. Additionally, more explicit language is proposed
to allow for elements such as wrought iron fences with less than 50 percent
opacity to be within the clear zone.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City regulations are intended to protect and promote public health and
safety.
• The proposed revisions will continue to do so.
• Regulations governing uncontrolled intersections will remain the
same.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The new stop sign policy will provide a minimum of two-way traffic
control at all intersections. This additional control reduces the need
fora 50-foot clear zone.
• Staff is of the opinion, based on the experience of enforcement of
current regulations, that a 50-foot sight triangle is often excessive in
terms of visibility needs.
• A 50-foot sight triangle can significantly limit a property owner's ability
to landscape and enhance their front and side yards.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May
28, 2008.
• One resident shared concerns related to pubic utility boxes/vaults,
campaign signs and solid fences within sight triangles and a specific
concern about the intersection of 70th Street and Clinton Avenue.
• The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
• of revisions to the sight triangle regulations (6-0).
• The Council approved a first reading of an ordinance to amend sight
triangle regulations with modifications that would retain the 50-foot
clear zone for uncontrolled intersections, reduce the sight triangle area
at intersections to 30-feet with at least two stop signs and an
exemption for fences with less than 50 percent opacity.
• If the ordinance is approved, it will take effect 30 days following
publication in the Sun Current.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Approve the attached ordinance with modifications.
• Deny a second reading of the attached ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
• Sight triangle illustrations
• Sample sight triangle illustrations on 50-foot lot
• VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~3-I
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
• REPEAL SUBSECTION 509.17 AND AMEND SUBSECTION
925.01, SUBD. 4(a) OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO CLEAR
VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Richfield City Code Subsection 509.17 is hereby repealed upon the effective
date of this Ordinance.
Section 2 Subsection 925.01, Subdivision 4(a) of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 4. Public nuisances affecting peace and safety. The following are
declared to be nuisances affecting peace and safety:
•
iron
ns
Section 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City
Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ,
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
• ATTEST:
.Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
(a) Trees, hedges, billboards or other obstructions which prevent persons from
having a clear view of traffic approaching an intersection from cross streets in
sufficient time to bring a motor vehicle drawn at a reasonable speed to a full
stop before the intersection is reached_
13~-a
•
50-foot sight triangle
(CURRENTLY APPLIES
TO:
uncontrolled & 2-way
controlled
intersections)
30-foot sight#riangle
(CURRENTLY APPLIES TO:
4-way controlled
intersections)
PROPOSED TO APPLY TO:
2-way controlled intersections in
addition to 4-way
•
Impact of 50- and 30-foot sight triangles
on 50-foot wide residential lot.
N
0 10 20 40 60 80
Feet
C
AGENDA SECTION: p'1'p1~R 3IISTNF.S~
AGENDA ITEM # jL~
REPORT # 159
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
JUNE 24, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of approval of conceptual terms of proposed public financing for the Cedar Point
Phase II redevelo ment ro'ect
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve conceptual terms of the proposed public
financin for the Cedar Point Phase II redevelo ment ro'ect
II. BACKGROUND
The Cedar Point Phase II Development area has been identified as an area in
which redevelopment is necessary in order to remove structures negatively
impacted by the noise generated by the adjacent Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport, as well as serving to provide a buffer between the retail development in
Cedar Point Commons and the single-family homes in the adjacent neighborhood.
The area is bounded by 65th Street to the south, 63rd Street to the north, 17th
Avenue to the east, and 16th Avenue to the west.
The City of Richfield's Comprehensive Plan designates this area as High-density
Multi-family to reflect the recommendations contained in the Cedar Corridor
• Redevelopment Concept Master Plan.
Twenty-nine homes currently occupy the site and will need to be removed. The
estimated cost to purchase these properties is estimated to be at least $7,500,000.
062408 Financing Cedar Point Phase II
KAREN BARYON, COMMUNITY
• Based on discussions with the City's Financial Analyst, Ehler's & Associates, and
with the Developers, it has been concluded that approximately $5,554,000 in public
assistance is required in order to make a development project on this site feasible.
Staff is proposing public financial assistance provided by the City of Richfield
through a combination of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and the issuance of Bonds.
The property currently sits within an existing TIF District, which is anticipated to
generate approximately $2,334,000 in tax increment that will be allocated to the
redevelopment project.
The remaining $3,220,000 in public financing will come from the following sources:
• The City will issue up to $4,320,000 in 429 Special Assessment Bonds.
• $1,100,000 of the bond proceeds will be used for construction costs of
Richfield Parkway between 63rd and 66th Streets, and storm water
processing.
• Up to $3,220,000 of the bond proceeds will be used to purchase 25-feet of
right-of-way from the developer for the portion of Richfield Parkway between
63rd and 66th Streets (assuming land values justify the purchase price).
• The development will be assessed 20% of the bond costs (up to $864,000)
over the life of the bond (i.e., 20 years). ($220,000 as 20% of the road/storm
• water costs and $644,000 as 20% of the ROW costs.)
• The remainder of the debt service on the bond will be paid through the
general obligation of the City.
Additionally, the developer will be obligated to repay the City as follows:
• The Developer will be obligated to repay the City an amount of up to
$3,220,000 (based on actual bond issuance):
• Up to $864,000 in Special Assessment payments over the life of a special
assessment bond (up to $644,000 for the portion of assessment for ROW
costs and $220,000 for the portion of assessment for road construction/storm
water); and
• Up to $2,356,000 through a note secured by a mortgage on the property to
be repaid in full with an annual interest charge at the earlier of either 20-
years after the date, of recording or upon the sale or substantial refinancing of
the project.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield has committed itself to the removal of the homes
in this area due to the negative noise impacts from the adjacent
airport.
• The City of Richfield has indicated a preference to replace these
• homes with high-density multi-family housing that is better suited to
the noise levels and will act as a buffer between the.Cedar Points
Commons retail area and the adjacent neighborhood.
• Staff has determined that it is infeasible for private redevelopment to
occur in this area without additional public assistance due to the high
cost of land acquisition.
• Staff presented the public financing concept to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) on May 19, 2008. The HRA
approved the proposed public financing concept.
• Staff presented the public financing concept to the City Council at a
Special Work Session on June 10, 2008.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Without additional public assistance, it is unlikely, if not impossible for
private redevelopment to occur in this area due to the high cost
associated with the land assembly.
C. FINANCIAL
• City staff has been working closely with financial analysts at Ehlers
and Associates, Inc. and have concluded that private redevelopment
will not occur without additional public financing.
• • As part of the Susee/Lang Nelson proposal, dated February 1, 2008,
they had assumed $2,142,000 in TIF public financing, $2,740,952 in
Tax Credit equity, and the remainder of the project to be funded
through loans and private investment.
• Due to market changes, the construction costs are anticipated to be
higher than was originally assumed and the Tax Credits have proved
to be infeasible for the project. The loan terms and associated interest
rate are also less favorable than had been assumed. All of these
factors have resulted in higher project costs than had been assumed
in the proposal
• The Susee/Lang Nelson proposal is still considerably more favorable
to the City than the Sherman & Associates proposal dated February 6,
2008. That proposal had assumed TIF public financing
commensurate to Ehler's projections, and an additional $4,500,000 in
up-front monies from the City of Richfield to aid in the acquisition of
homes. The $4,5000,000 would not be repaid to the City. They were
also assuming $13,670,000 in Tax Credits for the project, as well as
$3,750,000 in grants and gap-funding through the State, County, and
Metropolitan Council. The remainder of the project would be funded
through loans and developer investment.
• The estimated tax impacts of the proposed Cedar Point bonds on
various residential properties values is:
$225,000 home: $17.80/yr.
$250,000 home: $19.78/yr.
$275,000 home: $21.76/yr.
• The estimated total property tax impact of the proposed Cedar Point
bonds and the full bonding for the City Hall project for the same
sample property values is:
$225,000 home: $150.86/yr.
$250,000 home: $167.62/yr.
$275,000 home: $184.38/yr.
D. LEGAL
• City Staff have been working closely with legal counsel exploring the
need for and legal ramifications of providing public financing to this
project.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• The project will incorporate a number of green and/or sustainable
building practices into the development.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Continue the. consideration of a motion on the issue to a later meeting.
• Do not adopt a motion supporting the proposed concept for public financing
for the project.
• V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Legal Counsel
• Financial Consultants from Ehlers & Associates
• Representatives of the Developers
,~